Wow, someone wrote him a great little speech. It doesn't really cover him, of course. I wonder if enough people will think it does.

One thing about it amused me, though. This sentence: I hope this deeply felt statement reaches those who have served those who are serving, and their families. It's missing a comma, eh? He meant to close with a standard list-of-three. I was actually momentarily confused by it -- what's he mean, people who used to work in commissaries on military bases? -- but only briefly.

MORE EDITING. EVERYTHING NEEDS MORE EDITING. Or copyediting, or at least proofreading. FGS.

For what it's worth, indeed. Secretary Rumsfeld (or his writer) is demonstrating the same tone-deafness that's gotten him into the trouble he's so clumsily trying to talk his way out of. He has nothing to say about his vivid picture of draftees "sucked into the intake" and "churn[ed]" like pig iron. I think Secretary Rumsfeld's (as opposed to his writer's) choice of words reveals a great deal about how he actually sees the large group of young men and women about to be churned up in the Persian Gulf and sucked into the intake of the grave. His apology's not for me to accept, but it sure doesn't make me feel any better anyway.

"You notice when Rummy says "eloquence" he's equating that with "precision and clarity," not the understood meaning of "prettily phrased."

Not sure I buy this. Real eloquence is at least as much about "precision and clarity" as it is about graceful or "pretty" phrasing. Moreover, I believe the last few thousand years' worth of commentary on the rhetorical arts backs me up on this.

The thing that strikes me as being so peculiar about Rumsfeld's comments on Vietnam (talk about men being sucked up into the intake valve of the army, churned, and spit back out) sound like the type of thing you'd expect a young rock-throwing anarchist to say while disclaiming the evils of the establishment. Which makes them sound particularly odd coming from the Secretary of Defense in an era of impending war.

Give me a break! "Churn" is a perfectly well-understood term of art in many fields: it refers to the percentage of turnover. Stop in at your local cellphone or cable provider and ask what their churn percentage is. Try the same experiment with the folks who own the local McDonald's franchise. Rumsfeld's point-- that high turnover among draftees meant that the overall effectiveness of the military was not enhanced by having them-- is perfectly valid. That's one of the reasons that the Soviet Army had so much trouble in Afghanistan: conscripts don't train as hard or fight as well as volunteers. Shoot, even John Walker Lindh is proof of that.

Not sure I buy this. Real eloquence is at least as much about "precision and clarity" as it is about graceful or "pretty" phrasing. Moreover, I believe the last few thousand years' worth of commentary on the rhetorical arts backs me up on this.

Interesting point. I went to check the dictionary, and found the "clarity" angle in only one of three definitions/sources:

Paul, I'm aware that 'churn' is a term used in many industries to describe turnover; since I work in an industry which uses the term that way, i'd have to be completely clueless to not be aware of it. And I agree that Rumsfeld's description of why the draft was a bad thing is, in fact, an accurate one. However, a description of the military sucking people in, churning them, and spitting them back out still sounds odd coming from the head of the military establishment.